From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #125 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 13 2005 Volume 14 : Number 125 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Podcasts [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: Bob [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: election stuff ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: election stuff [The Great Quail ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: election stuff [Christopher Gross ] Re: election stuff [Christopher Gross ] Re: election stuff ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: election stuff [Tom Clark ] Re: election stuff [Eb ] Re: election stuff [Eb ] Re: election stuff [The Great Quail ] Re: election stuff [Tom Clark ] Re: election stuff [Tom Clark ] Beck on Nightline [Mike Swedene ] RE: election stuff ["Michael Wells" ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff ["Randalljr" ] RE: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: election stuff [Eb ] Re: election stuff ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: election stuff [Christopher Gross ] RE: election stuff ["Marc Alberts" ] RE: election stuff ["Marc Alberts" ] RE: election stuff [Capuchin ] RE: election stuff ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: election stuff [2and2makes5@comcast.net] RE: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [2and2makes5@comcast.net] Re: election stuff [2and2makes5@comcast.net] Reincarnation Confirmed! [Steve Schiavo ] Re: election stuff [Jeff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 00:19:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Podcasts Anyone have any particularly good or bad podcasts to recommend? I know that is somewhat vague, but I don't want to be more specific for reasons too complicated to get into at this moment.... "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 00:48:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: >> This was not an example of how or why "capitalism is evil", but an >> illustration of how the system preferred by Benjamin doesn't satisfy >> his own requirement that one reaps the fruits of one's own labor. > > Actually, it does no such thing, unless your definition of "the fruits > of one's own labor" is stilted to the point where you would decry the > existence of electricity because perpetual motion machines weren't > possible. [I don't follow the specific analogy made here, but I don't think it's necessary to get your point which is more clearly defined later.] OK, maybe Benjamin and I were the only ones reading the whole thread. I can understand that. I can go head and explain the full context. It didn't satisfy his requirements ANY BETTER than the idea of a "socialist" system he described. Is that more clear? He wrote that socialism fails because people cannot benefit from the fruits of their own labor. However, they benefit from the fruits of ALL labor... their own included, even though they may not reap their specific products of labor. > Thus to set the bar at that level, what you have done is define a key > term in Benjamin's system in a way no one in Benjamin's system would > rationally accept. This hardly provides for an example where Benjamin's > system doesn't satisfy his own requirements. Well, reaping the fruits of one's own labor was just a suggestion of mine about what Benjamin might mean by "fair". He hasn't yet come back with any explanation of what he meant by it. I DID define the key term, but only because he didn't do it himself (though I asked repeatedly). I still maintain that it doesn't have a meaning that is both satsifiable and generally accepted. > All it really proves is that your conception of what an equitable > economic exchange is really is out of whack. Recall that this was a discussion of the "fairness" of income taxes; specifically, a "maximum wage"-type taxation policy. Benjamin wrote asking if such a policy was "fair". I questioned the validity of the term as anything but a rhetorical device and went on to show that all of several commonly used senses of the word go unsatisfied without comment in our natural world and our manufactured economy. Hence, the word doesn't really describe a value that people actually uphold. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 01:26:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Bob Jeff wrote: > I've never heard him interviewed or remember reading > much, but he's always struck me as much more interesting > than the band's image would suggest. In the article he wrote about attending this years SXSW, didn't Robyn mention having dinner one night with Plant and Elvis Costello? "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:19:10 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff Well, no, there are many other parties over here. The Tories (aka Conservatives) were in power over here for 18 years, in which time they pretty much asset-stripped the public wealth and left 3 million people unemployed. But yes, IMO you don't have to be very right-wing to be completely wrong in your political opinions. ;0) Cheers Matt >From: Benjamin Lukoff >To: Matt Sewell >CC: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: election stuff >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:09:43 -0700 (PDT) > >Dear me, it seems as if you're not Labour or LibDem you're automatically a >right-wing nutter? > >On Thu, 12 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > Actually there's not much between the Tories and any of the other > > organisations for right-wing nutters. One only needs to look at the likes > > of Tebbit or Thatcher or these days, John Redwood or Anne Widdicombe...CheersMatt > > > > >From: Benjamin Lukoff > > > > > >I wonder if I were actually a Briton whether I wouldn't be voting > > >Conservative, then. > > > > > >On Wed, 11 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > > > > > To be honest, there's not much between 'em. Both pretty racist > > > > organisations, both pretty scary. The only difference is class as far > > as > > > > I see it - UKIP preferred right-wing nutters of the middle classes. > > You > > > > may have heard of Robert Kilroy Silk - he was in UKIP until the party > > > > would not make him leader. I like to think that RKS is Britain's > > > > most-hated celeb... > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Matt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 06:00:53 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: election stuff Jeme wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > >> This was not an example of how or why "capitalism is evil", but an > >> illustration of how the system preferred by Benjamin doesn't satisfy > >> his own requirement that one reaps the fruits of one's own labor. > > > > Actually, it does no such thing, unless your definition of "the fruits > > of one's own labor" is stilted to the point where you would decry the > > existence of electricity because perpetual motion machines weren't > > possible. > > [I don't follow the specific analogy made here, but I don't think it's > necessary to get your point which is more clearly defined later.] > > OK, maybe Benjamin and I were the only ones reading the whole thread. I > can understand that. I can go head and explain the full context. > > It didn't satisfy his requirements ANY BETTER than the idea of a > "socialist" system he described. Is that more clear? Sure it does--I'll explain in a second. > > He wrote that socialism fails because people cannot benefit from the > fruits of their own labor. However, they benefit from the fruits of ALL > labor... their own included, even though they may not reap their specific > products of labor. This is where your definitions fuzz out again. If the fruits of my labor are defined as the income I receive based on the value I add to the production system, then in capitalism, while I might not get 100%, there is actually incentive for an employer to give me up to 99.99%. This is because the value of the worker is the marginal value they add. Therefore, if I add 20% more value to the system, I have ever right to go in and demand just about all of that back in a pay raise. The more specialized my position (and the economy is becoming more specialized by the second), the greater the percentage of my marginal value that I will get in return. In a socialist system, however, if I add 20% more value than I had previously, because the fruits are spread out I will receive that 20% divided by the fraction I receive as part of the population. If the population is, for the sake of argument, 1,000,000 people, the fruits of all labor I would receive for my efforts would be 1/5th of 1/1000000th of a portion. I am therefore dependent upon each and every one of the other 999,999 people to increase their production by the exact same 20% in order for me to have any theoretical advantage over a capitalist system, and for me to receive a greater "fruit of my labor" distribution. As Benjamin said, this is why socialist systems fail to increase overall wealth compared to capitalist systems. > > > Thus to set the bar at that level, what you have done is define a key > > term in Benjamin's system in a way no one in Benjamin's system would > > rationally accept. This hardly provides for an example where Benjamin's > > system doesn't satisfy his own requirements. > > Well, reaping the fruits of one's own labor was just a suggestion of mine > about what Benjamin might mean by "fair". He hasn't yet come back with > any explanation of what he meant by it. I DID define the key term, but > only because he didn't do it himself (though I asked repeatedly). > > I still maintain that it doesn't have a meaning that is both satsifiable > and generally accepted. > > > All it really proves is that your conception of what an equitable > > economic exchange is really is out of whack. > > Recall that this was a discussion of the "fairness" of income taxes; > specifically, a "maximum wage"-type taxation policy. Benjamin wrote > asking if such a policy was "fair". I questioned the validity of the term > as anything but a rhetorical device and went on to show that all of > several commonly used senses of the word go unsatisfied without comment in > our natural world and our manufactured economy. Hence, the word doesn't > really describe a value that people actually uphold. "Fair" is a value judgment, to be sure. My fair might not be someone else's fair. That said, "fair" should imply somewhere that both sides are mutually satisfied by the exchange that took place. By saying that a given level of taxation is not fair, the implication usually is that while the majority might be mutually satisfied, the person who actually defines one side of "fair" in the equation does not because that person is required to pay at a different rate than others simply because of "society's" determination of what he "should" consider to be fair is different from his conception of it. Capping income, therefore, very easily could be seen to fall into the "unfair" area, rhetorical device or no. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:23:20 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: election stuff Jeme insults, > Then why do it? Is it emotionally fulfilling or something? Do you just > like controlling some aspect of the lives of others? Shut up! Shut up! Shut the fuck up! Go away! Go away! AAAAAAAArrrrgh! Please stick a pin in your ass and finally deflate yourself, you pompous, horrible, sanctimonious windbag! Arrrgh! Why didn't the Lord just start with a plague of Jemes raining down upon Pharaoh; he could have saved thousands of Egyptian first-borns....! Aaaaaaargh! Oh, wait, did I just post this? Sorry, that was meant to be an email to my internal monologue.... - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:08:19 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff Quail accuses Cappy of being a pompous, sanctimonious windbag? Pot/kettle situation, surely? Cheers Matt >From: The Great Quail >Shut up! Shut up! Shut the fuck up! Go away! Go away! AAAAAAAArrrrgh! Please >stick a pin in your ass and finally deflate yourself, you pompous, horrible, >sanctimonious windbag! Arrrgh! Why didn't the Lord just start with a plague >of Jemes raining down upon Pharaoh; he could have saved thousands of >Egyptian first-borns....! Aaaaaaargh! > >Oh, wait, did I just post this? Sorry, that was meant to be an email to my >internal monologue.... > >--Q ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:34:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, The Great Quail wrote: > Jeme insults, > > > Then why do it? Is it emotionally fulfilling or something? Do you just > > like controlling some aspect of the lives of others? > > Shut up! Shut up! Shut the fuck up! Go away! Go away! AAAAAAAArrrrgh! Please > stick a pin in your ass and finally deflate yourself, you pompous, horrible, etc. Heh. Though I've only been giving this thread the lightest of skims, I found a subtler but more amusing quote yesterday: > > Does that make me a bstard? > > It makes you a hurtful, destructive person, at any rate. I'll avoid the > invective and stick with words I can support. Insults and heated accusations aren't "invective" if Cappy can construct some adolescent theoretical justification for them, you see. - --Chris ps: Sending Capuchin two copies was a nice touch! ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:41:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > Quail accuses Cappy of being a pompous, sanctimonious windbag? > > Pot/kettle situation, surely? No no no! While Capuchin is pompous and sanctimonious, Quail is long-winded and over-emotional. Very different things. Meanwhile, I'm sloppy and snide. And Matt just hates America. Who else? - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:42:24 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: election stuff At 04:08 PM 5/13/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: >Quail accuses Cappy of being a pompous, sanctimonious windbag? > >Pot/kettle situation, surely? Well, perhaps. If the kettle's black and the pot is one of those hip bluestone thingies. Actually, in this case, the kettle is more of a rabid dog barking at windmills while pissing on his own leg. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:22:06 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: election stuff On May 13, 2005, at 8:41 AM, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > >> Quail accuses Cappy of being a pompous, sanctimonious windbag? >> >> Pot/kettle situation, surely? > > No no no! While Capuchin is pompous and sanctimonious, Quail is > long-winded and over-emotional. Very different things. > > Meanwhile, I'm sloppy and snide. And Matt just hates America. > > Who else? > I'm self-centered and have very little ability to express myself clearly. Oh, and I like beer and big boobs. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:45:56 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: election stuff Tom Clark wrote: > Oh, and I like beer and big boobs. > -tc > What size beer? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:47:23 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: election stuff Christopher Gross wrote: > No no no! While Capuchin is pompous and sanctimonious, Quail is > long-winded and over-emotional. Very different things. > > Meanwhile, I'm sloppy and snide. And Matt just hates America. > > Who else? I really love cloudy apple cider. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:38:23 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: election stuff Matt gripes, > Quail accuses Cappy of being a pompous, sanctimonious windbag? > > Pot/kettle situation, surely? I couldn't help but noticing that you left off "horrible." - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:16:15 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: election stuff On May 13, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Eb wrote: > Tom Clark wrote: >> Oh, and I like beer and big boobs. >> -tc >> > What size beer? Large. But so large that it obscures the boobs. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:25:38 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: election stuff On May 13, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > On May 13, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Eb wrote: > >> Tom Clark wrote: >>> Oh, and I like beer and big boobs. >>> -tc >>> >> What size beer? > > Large. But so large that it obscures the boobs. > Sorry, meant "But NOT so large that it obscures the boobs." That would be tragic! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Beck on Nightline I think I saw a commercial saying that Beck (not Jeff) is going to be on Nightline tonight. Please check local listings. Mike - ------------------------------------------------- "there is water at the bottom of the ocean" - talking heads _________________________________________________________ __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:46:18 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: election stuff > Sorry, meant "But NOT so large that it obscures the boobs." > > That would be tragic! Depends on how much you like beer. Michael "obstreperous and slightly cunning, but in a feel-good sort of way" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:01:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > Well, no, there are many other parties over here. The Tories (aka > Conservatives) were in power over here for 18 years, in which time they > pretty much asset-stripped the public wealth and left 3 million people > unemployed. Wasn't a lot of that public wealth nationalized in the first place? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:04:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Tom Clark wrote: > On May 13, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Eb wrote: > > > Tom Clark wrote: > >> Oh, and I like beer and big boobs. > >> -tc > >> > > What size beer? > > Large. But [not] so large that it obscures the boobs. I prefer cider to beer, but I do like big boobs. They can obscure the cider. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:36:11 -0700 From: "Randalljr" Subject: Re: election stuff From: "Christopher Gross" > No no no! While Capuchin is pompous and sanctimonious, Quail is > long-winded and over-emotional. Very different things. > > Meanwhile, I'm sloppy and snide. And Matt just hates America. > > Who else? I'm obsessed with Rush, hunting, and throwing live creatures in a pot to boil to death. And I think Eb is cool. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:28:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: RE: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > In a socialist system, however, if I add 20% more value than I had > previously, because the fruits are spread out I will receive that 20% > divided by the fraction I receive as part of the population. If the > population is, for the sake of argument, 1,000,000 people, the fruits of all > labor I would receive for my efforts would be 1/5th of 1/1000000th of a > portion. I am therefore dependent upon each and every one of the other > 999,999 people to increase their production by the exact same 20% in order > for me to have any theoretical advantage over a capitalist system, and for > me to receive a greater "fruit of my labor" distribution. > As Benjamin said, this is why socialist systems fail to increase overall > wealth compared to capitalist systems. Thanks for explaining this much better than I was able to do. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:44:38 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: election stuff At 10:36 AM 5/13/2005 -0700, Randalljr wrote: >throwing live creatures in a pot to boil to death. I have absolutely no problem with this, but it's a hell of a difficult way to make beef bourguignon. I make a fabulous beef bourguignon, by the way. >And I think Eb is cool. You could not be more incorrect. Eb is hot. HOT HOT HOT. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:57:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: election stuff > I have absolutely no problem with this, but it's a hell of a difficult > way to make beef bourguignon. I make a fabulous beef bourguignon, by > the way. What size bourguignon? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:24:49 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: election stuff At 01:57 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Eb wrote: >>I have absolutely no problem with this, but it's a hell of a difficult >>way to make beef bourguignon. I make a fabulous beef bourguignon, by the way. > >What size bourguignon? About two pounds. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:15:45 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff Not true in the slightest. True, I hate your government, and I find it frustrating that generally the country seems to be conservative in every way apart from energy use, but I think it's probably silly to hate a country or its people. Only the other day I was musing that I'd love to visit the NW coast and cycle up it to Vancouver. I think you're just paranoid, Chris. Actually, it's strange - a lot of Americans seem a little worried to admit their nationality when they come over here and I tell each that I meet that really us Brits tend to just love Americans - and it's always borne out. But I'm sorry if you got the impression I hate your country - as I say, it's not the case, though if you'd all avoid voting Republican (even if you have to vote Democrat) and drive smaller cars, I'd love it even more than I do already. Cheers Matt, Yankophile >From: Christopher Gross And Matt just hates America. >--Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:20:36 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff "Actually, in this case, the kettle is more of a rabid dog barking at windmills while pissing on his own leg." While a bird too bloated and full of itself to fly boorishly screams at it to "shut the fuck up"? I far prefer Jeme's jibes to "shut the fuck up". Cheers Matt >From: "Jason R. Thornton" >"Actually, in this case, the kettle is more of a rabid dog barking at >windmills while pissing on his own leg." > > > >--Jason > > "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." > - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:39:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: election stuff I wasn't entirely serious when I said you hate America, Matt, but I'm still glad it isn't really true. But is "jibe" really the right word for Capuchinery? I always took "jibe" to imply humorous taunting or mockery. When Capuchin accuses someone of crimes against humanity, he always seems to mean it quite seriously and literally. - --Chris "listless, myopic and squidophiliac" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:20:26 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: election stuff Eb wrote: > I really love cloudy apple cider. Now that's a statement I could live by. Down in Portland, McMenamin's used to have some of the best hard cider I've ever had. Used to like it better than their beers. The only time I tried it up here in Seattle, however, I was not happy with it. It just wasn't the same. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:24:42 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: election stuff Matt wrote: > But I'm sorry if you got the impression I hate your country - as I say, > it's not the case, though if you'd all avoid voting Republican (even if > you have to vote Democrat) and drive smaller cars, I'd love it even more > than I do already. > I drive a hybrid that gets on average about 50mpg. Bring on the love, England!!! Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > I drive a hybrid that gets on average about 50mpg. Bring on the love, > England!!! Didn't the Metro do better than that? I don't really understand these new hybrids which don't have much more power and no better gas mileage than the old three-stroke miniwagons. And gas mileage is, in my opinion, a red herring. The real problem with the automobile is the disconnection it provides from one's neighbors and neighborhoods, the enormous amount of space required for their use and storage, the mind-boggling amount of time and money required for their production and maintenance, and the laziness and lethargy they promote in the populace. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:03:12 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: election stuff Jeme wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > > I drive a hybrid that gets on average about 50mpg. Bring on the love, > > England!!! > > Didn't the Metro do better than that? At times, yes, but not all. > I don't really understand these new > hybrids which don't have much more power and no better gas mileage than > the old three-stroke miniwagons. They are roomier, drive better, get roughly the same mileage, and pollute far less. > And gas mileage is, in my opinion, a red herring. It isn't when you have to commute 40 miles round-trip daily for work, plus often have to drive 10-15 miles at a pop during the course of your day. > The real problem with > the automobile is the disconnection it provides from one's neighbors and > neighborhoods, the enormous amount of space required for their use and > storage, the mind-boggling amount of time and money required for their > production and maintenance, and the laziness and lethargy they promote in > the populace. And with all that, you can take my car away when you pry the keys from my cold, dead hand. I'll wave at you as I pass your bus next time. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:26:44 +0000 From: 2and2makes5@comcast.net Subject: Re: election stuff > Actually, it's strange - a lot of Americans seem a little worried to > admit their nationality when they come over here ... I think this may stem from that scene in "Trainspotting" Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: RE: election stuff On Fri, 13 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > > And gas mileage is, in my opinion, a red herring. > > It isn't when you have to commute 40 miles round-trip daily for work, plus > often have to drive 10-15 miles at a pop during the course of your day. Playing the devil's advocate, one could of course say "why don't you live closer than 20 miles to work?" Of course I live around 7.5 miles from work and that isn't much better and I drive both ways. My answer is I don't want to live on Capitol Hill because of all the left-wing nutters :) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:36:20 +0000 From: 2and2makes5@comcast.net Subject: Re: election stuff > Shut up! Shut up! Shut the fuck up! Go away! Go away! AAAAAAAArrrrgh! Please > stick a pin in your ass and finally deflate yourself, you pompous, horrible, > sanctimonious windbag! Arrrgh! Why didn't the ... This is really funny if you say it in a Gollum voice. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:41:45 +0000 From: 2and2makes5@comcast.net Subject: Re: election stuff > Shut up! Shut up! Shut the fuck up! Go away! Go away! AAAAAAAArrrrgh! Please > stick a pin in your ass and finally deflate yourself, you pompous, horrible, > sanctimonious windbag! Arrrgh! Why didn't the ... This is really funny if you say it in a Gollum voice. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:16:05 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Reincarnation Confirmed! - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:59:00 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: election stuff On 5/13/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > > > > And gas mileage is, in my opinion, a red herring. > > > > It isn't when you have to commute 40 miles round-trip daily for work, plus > > often have to drive 10-15 miles at a pop during the course of your day. > > Playing the devil's advocate, one could of course say "why don't you live > closer than 20 miles to work?" Well, it could be that the capitalist real-estate market has priced him out of anything closer to his work... ;-) More seriously (even though what I just said is quite possibly true), while it would be nice if we lived in a nation where everyone could drive less, we don't. We can try to create incentives to make it so...but not everyone can bike to work, not everyone lives in a climate where that's possible even if they can do it, etc. etc. When we bought our house, even though it was 5-10 miles further from both of our (then) places of employment, we couldn't afford to buy in the neighborhoods nearer by. I work two jobs, one of which would require two bus transfers and a half-hour of walking (~1.5 hrs) each way...plus, I use the car *at* work to run errands. My university job is more public-transportation friendly - I'd only have to transfer once, and the route's direct and frequent - but still, public trans. adds lots of travel time for me. Rose could, in fact, take the bus to work - but often, she has to drive to work sites, meet clients, etc. One solution is for the *company* to have a couple of cars for its employees' work-related use (i.e., they don't drive htem home), or for there to be public car-sharing as there are in some cities (I think Boston, Madison WI, and some others). But the fact is, for most people right now, going carless simply is *not* practical. True, if more people insisted on better public transportation, it would be *more* practical. But I think the best we can do now is discourage sprawl, encourage urban infill development instead, and encourage those who can avoid cars to do so. Oh - and kill the trucking lobby and go back to trains for transporting goods. Trucks pollute massively and destroy roads. They should be used for first- and last-leg transport to/from trains only. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #125 ********************************